Iselltheshitoutofphones said:The Network boys and girls sat down and looked at roaming revenue, tower capacity, and traffic. For those towers that didn't seem finacially advantageous to maintain, got the cut.

Makes sense.....to me.

Makes sense, but that is probably not the case in this situation.

Popular misconception is that a "tower" is appropriately synonymous w/ a "cell site." But a tower does not necessarily host a cell site, nor does a cell site necessarily reside upon a tower. For example, a tower could be a radio tower, a microwave tower, etc. And a cell site could be located on a multistory building, on a mountainside, etc.

Now, if a "tower" is descriptively qualified as a "cell tow...(continues)